Re: Coming up with a new Oracle (was: Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR)
Clint Adams writes ("Re: Coming up with a new Oracle (was: Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR)"):
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:09:52AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > The constitution should really be clear so that interpretation is almost
> > never needed.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > We should fix the constitution so that we can leave the duty of
> > interpreting the constitution to the secretary.
>
> Agreed.
When Raphael uses the word constitution he does not include the
Foundation Documents, I think.
> > We just need to make it
> > clear that the secretary doesn't have to interpret the foundation
> > documents to handle his secretarial work and that he must apply 3:1 ratio
> > based on what the GR says (explicit supersession or not) and not on what
> > he believes it means in practice.
>
> I think that that is probably the opposite of what we need.
Did you see my analysis ? Do you disagree with it ? What do you
think we need to get from where we are now to where we need to be ?
Where we are now is that we have Foundation Documents which are:
- vague
- hard to change (requiring supermajority)
- hard to change (changes are controversial)
- alleged by some to be binding in some sense other than
as a definite instruction to individual developers regarding
their own work, and non-binding by others
- alleged by some to be interpretable by the Secretary and
by others to be interpretable by individual developers
Ian.
Reply to: